Re: 11111 Too complicated?
- Very well put Jon!
I have expressed similar responses to others regarding these issues,
below is an excerpt from one of my outgoing email messages to another
physicist who has a profound interest in Hameltech.
"I am inclined to believe that many people before
us, from the ancients through today, no matter what ever ideas enter
our minds that none are exclusively our own, as they must have
derived from some other outside source, even if that source is from
one's own unique ability to "tap-in" to what many others
refer to as a "superconscious" virtual think tank, or
whatever you wish to call it.
Think of it like as if our minds have other unique abilities to work
together as a combination radio and computer in which some of our
blessed every now & then when we open ourselves unto these thought
processes that we engage in an activity that allows us to generate a
virtual "uplink" if you will, which in turn enables
selected, gifted humans to download information from this spiritual,
cosmic, colective quantum computer.
What we humans "do" with this information is what becomes
deserving of merit by acting upon it with reverence, dilligence &
discipline to use it wisely. I am also inclined to believe that if we
open ouselves unto seeking proper guidence, we can endure much more
responsibility that goes with accepting our destiny which too is a
"given" once we seek after such wisdom in accordingly."
---T12 of T.A.P.-T.E.N.
--- In email@example.com, "Jon C. Munson II" <jmunson@h...>
hi andrew, et. al,
1st: in response to the drawing attached to the original message, i
see little reason it wouldn't work. one modification i would stress
is to provide some sort of lip over the top of the ball container
(like the overhangs in a bobsled/luge track at the curves) to keep
the ball from popping out. the ball reflects the WIS principle, and,
if the device acheives proper motion, the ball could potentially run
right out of the top in the current design due to mass/centrifugal
force. my two cents.
2nd: in response to andrew's post. i disagree that apathy and
indifference are root causes. i'd say anonymity and the desire to
see if we "understand" are reasons. the first part comes into play
due to the more negative forces at work in this world, the second is
to ensure we "grow" as a certain amount of spiritual understanding is
required to solve this particular problem.
i, for one, am exceptionally interested in this technology. i have
built an m3cd to see the possibilities and learn a bit - i did not
build it to function fully as that required far more resources than i
have on hand (i.e., use of granite and building "big"). from the
motion i achieved (not anything near st. clair's) i discerned that
the technology is valid; i didn't need anything further than that.
intuitively this stuff makes sense to me, although i couldn't
describe scientifically in our terms (nor do i fathom david's
terms). i am waiting for david's book, anxiously, before i
attempt anything further. remember his warning of "they don't know
what they're playing with." i get the idea the 3CD could be very
much akin to a highly potent nuclear bomb if assembled in a
particular fashion and i certainly don't want to make that mistake.
also, i'm told from other sources, and discerning from st. clair's
posts, that MIB does indeed exist and they are watching for any kind
of activity than a 3CD, or other devices of similar tech, could
produce. so some caution is necessary.
as for valid proof, justin is well on his way with the WIS, david's
book is coming out (sooner than later i hope), bryan st. clair has
significant achievements, etc., and a few others. many people laughed
at the thought of heavier-than-air flight, yet it happened by
persistence (and other things too i'm sure). same with moon
missions. many people still laugh at the idea of "big brother," yet,
take a look at what goes on today.
validity isn't so much a question of pure proof positive but whether
one believes. the ancients did many things modern 'science' cannot
explain so we must not use modern 'science' to attempt the same feats.
- Mag Science,
That Egyptian thing is EXACTLY what I thought after working on this a
bit--the Egyptian drawings look more like what you originally drew
(sans outer rings, etc.)!
Pretty neat huh? :)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mag Science" <magscience@h...> wrote:
> Good stuff Bill.
> I just quickly checked what I feel are the important measurements on
your drawings and it appears as though you have got them right. When
looking at the side view, the center to center distance for the
magnets must be the same as the cone tip to tip length. Don't worry
about the kick in the bottom cone. The MPM measurement should be the
center of the magnet on top of the cone to the bottom tip of the same
cone. This does not have to be a physical edge of the cone to work. It
can be the dashed lined that you showed, extended up a bit to the
center line of the magnet. Have a look at it that way and see what you
come up with.
> When you say that we should replicate the original, I agree, but
maybe the Djed was the original. David says that this technology was
supposed to handed to the Egyptians many years ago. Take a look at it
and then back at the two drawings we have shown. How far off can we be?
> Mag Science
> P.S. I found this this week and thought it very fitting.
> "A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds" - Mark Twain
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: billsaleen <bills1@c...>
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:44 PM
> Subject: [hameltech] Re: 11111 Too complicated?
> I thought this was a very interesting idea.
> When I was in the middle of building a 15" 3CD I ran into some
> problems. Plus, the amount of work and time required for such a thing
> is higher than I want to invest right now.
> Usually I would say that one should duplicate the exact design of the
> working original, but if the purpose of the 3CD is more to get a feel
> for the tech than it is to actually produce plasma then trying simpler
> designs may be ok.
> So, I have decided to try this. I have posted the schematic for my
> design (cones only, and modified somewhat to fit the magnets) for any
> who are interested.
> Some notes on it: the ring magnets are 4.54"x.4" w/ 1.75" hole,
> ceramic #5. The cones are not MPM; they needed to be modified to fit
> the magnets (also notice the "kink"). The magnet gap is not entirely
> arbitrary. It is based on the regular magnet gap and taking into
> account the estimated weight of the cones. This is because there will
> be no outer ring on which to balance the cones. The blue, dashed lines
> are guides only.
> - Bill
> Thanks to Travis' enthusiasm, I have another "phase" of passion to
> direct toward this :)
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mag Science" <magscience@h...>
> > As the group approaches it's third year anniversary, Jan 1/03, I
> can't help but wonder if the group is trying to make a device that is
> too complicated due to all of the factors involved. Upon my review of
> the information provided by the group and study of what I consider the
> main design criteria for the device, plus the limited successes of the
> group in building devices, I have to wonder.
> > Now by no means am I suggesting that David Hamel or the group is
> designing their devices wrong, or am I trying to belittle any efforts
> of the builders or their successes. All I'm asking the group to do is
> to take a step back and look at the design criteria the device needs
> to function, and then review some other designs in how the device
> could be made. Some may say that the device must be as David has told
> us, but I ask you then, are the engines in our vehicles today the same
> as the ones 100 years ago? The answer is no. The basic principle is
> the same but designs are varied amongst the different manufacturers
> and the technology level we are at today.
> > Before I go into how I see the device working I would ask you to
> clear your mind of the designs you have seen to date, and review the
> principles outlined. If you do you will see how I put all of the
> design criteria together into the device and you will see the
> possibilities of the new design. I joined this group May 31 of 2001
> and came up with this design by the end of June that same year. I
> tried to bounce some of these ideas off of a few in the group but my
> ideas were not received favorably, and thus I decided that maybe I
> didn't come up with the answer in a month. I spent the last year and a
> half reviewing the materials, designs, ideas, successes of the group
> and compared the information to my design. In that time I have become
> more convinced that this design should work and the group should know
> about it.
> > The design criteria:
> > 1.. David Hamel has stated numerous times and he can't stress
> enough that we need to have an Isotope line. As you can find out from
> the information from the group, an Isotope line has three equal parts
> or sections. The device, at rest should have a straight Isotope line,
> and when not at rest each section of the Isotope line must remain the
> same length.
> > 2.. The group has concluded that the device must be balanced
> mechanically. I take this to mean that when the device is balanced and
> at rest, that the Isotope line should be straight or very close to it
> and secondly that the three sections of the Isotope line have an equal
> mechanical weight.
> > 3.. Just as the device needs to be mechanically balanced, it needs
> to be magnetically balanced. I take this to mean that when the device
> is at rest that the magnetic forces make the Isotope line as straight
> as possible. The magnetic forces are used to continually keep the
> Isotope line in this neutral position or the device at rest.
> > 4.. A force is required to keep the Isotope line from being
> > That's it four simple design criteria. Some of you may be asking
> what about the MPM or the design criteria of the base? If you examine
> a device that provides the first criteria then you will see that it
> incorporates the MPM. If you study the function of the base you will
> see that it is required to allow the bottom section of the Isotope
> line to move while keeping the device mechanically and magnetically
> > Now when you look at the devices the group have made, you can see
> right away why I ask if we are making the devices too complicated. The
> first criteria can be examined by calculations made from the cone
> designs. The second two criteria are determined by the design and
> skills of the builder and the quality and consistency of the magnets.
> > To make the design simpler I reviewed how to obtain the easiest
> magnetic balance. The method I came up with was to have two equal
> sized magnets opposing each other equally. By using the two equally
> opposing magnets I did not have to deal with any gaps or weak spots in
> the magnetic forces. Next I looked at how I could design the device so
> that I would have equal lengths in the Isotope line. The best design I
> could come up with was a cone design not unlike what the group has
> used in the past. The second criteria was the easiest to accomplish as
> I wanted to have the cones machined and the magnets being used were so
> close to identical that their imperfections would not throw out the
> mechanical balance. The forth criteria was made by adding a heavy ball
> that keeps the device from being mechanically balanced.
> > I have found numerous advantages of this design over the current
> designs the group is using. Some are:
> > 1.. One of the advantages of this design was that I did not need
> to have a base that moved with the precision required to keep the
> device balanced and functional.
> > 2.. The device was easy to balance magnetically.
> > 3.. The device was easy to balance mechanically.
> > 4.. The Isotope line was easy to keep in three equal lengths.
> > 5.. It is easier to build a small device than a large one.
> > Have a look at the design attached and see what you think. Hopefully
> you will find new answers that make you ask more questions.
> > I hope this new design gets the group thinking kick starts the group
> into a successful new year.
> > NST
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Header Codes
> 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> 11113: David Hamel reports
> 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> OT: "Off Topic"
> Post message: email@example.com
> Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: email@example.com
> List owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.